Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/14/2011 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    really? 97% of the primate fossil tree is missing. 100% of the transitionals between phyla are missing. there is exactly zero evidence that life arose naturally, science goes so far as to state it's fundamentally without explanation and DID NOT arrive here by any kind of accumulation.
  2. 3 points
    God's creation is not a lie. Fallible men often will misinterpret the evidence. The men are the liars.
  3. 3 points
    The latest paper from Schweitzer et al continues the practice of inconsistency. Earlier in the paper it is "vessel-like" but then she uses "The scientists raised antibodies against all components of the extant vasculature to observe positive binding in the dinosaur vessel walls." "The dinosaur vessels also indicated the presence of type I collagen antibodies, although elastin antibodies showed greater intensity. " "Their vascular affinities have been supported through the application of varied independent methods to identify endogenous component proteins3,4, including collagen, which is not produced by microbes5, " "Mass spectrometry sequencing of isolated vessels recovered from the cortical bone of a non-avian dinosaur further supported the presence of vertebrate-specific vascular proteins in isolated dinosaurian vessels7. " https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51680-1 "Antibodies raised against ostrich haemoglobin10 also showed positive binding, although at comparatively lower intensity (Fig. 4m,n). No reactivity was seen for vessels exposed to antibodies against bacterial peptidoglycan (Fig. 4o,p), eliminating the possibility that these structures arose from microbial contamination45." Firstly, the actual published research itself uses wording that indicates they are talking about dinosaur blood cells. "Haemoglobin, the major protein within vertebrate erythrocytes (red blood cells), is abundant in highly vascularised bone. When released during post mortem haemolysis, haemoglobin protein can interact with and adsorb onto surrounding tissues; in modern vertebrates, haemoglobin imparts a red hue to bone and the walls of blood vessels10. Thus, these proteins constitute a reasonable suite of targets for IHC techniques, and their in situ identification in fossil blood vessels supports their endogeneity. " TRANSLATION: their methods identified hemoglobin which is the major component of red blood cells. But she wants to remain very sciency in this paper. However she decided to title her own paper about her finding, which was not in a science journal, "Blood from Stone." Maybe we should just stop talking about red blood cells and only speak about osteocytes and blood vessels, terms which she has no problem using. If we stopped doing that, would you stop trying to make a mountain out of that molehill and focus on the fact that there are indeed tissues present which ought to not be there? Nah... I didn't think so!
  4. 3 points
    I had the same problem with what if. He either is too smart or too dumb to communicate his thoughts...or he chooses to be purposefully evasive. Probably because if he had the guts to stake out his true beliefs plainly he feels he'd have trouble defending them. It's easier to just stack together some tricky words so that he can continue an endless game of plausible deniability.
  5. 3 points
    Listen and listen good.. I asked for a plausible evolutionary order for man's VITAL organs from 1through 10.. You claimed that he gave a "partial" order" which is a LIE. And THEN ASSERT that "there is no successive 1-10 Order" Which of course is TRUE as EVOLUTION NEVER HAPPENED.. If there IS NO successive 1 to 10 order, (As you finally admit!) HOW CAN YOU CLAIM THAT HE GAVE A "PARTIAL ORDER"??? When there is no order?? You see, everyone is a Creationist at heart.. Everyone KNOWS that the fairytale of Evolutionism is impossible and is a lie.. You dont have to remain in the closet just for philosophical reasons, I just dont appreciate being called a "Liar" by someone who is lying when they make the FALSE ACCUSATION that I am the one who is "Lying" when CORRECTLY pointing out or that he completely DODGED my question just like you did again with your "There is no successive 1 to 10 order".. CREATIONISTS ALREADY KNOW THAT!! So AGAIN..With your assertion.. "Stop lying Blitzking. He did give a partial order" Here is list of mans 10 VITAL organs.. Pancreas / U Intestine / Kidneys / L Intestine / Heart / Skin / Brain / Lungs / Liver / Stomach Did he give ANY order? NO!!! Which VITAL organ evolved (OR COULD HAVE EVOLVED) 1st? 2nd? 3rd? 4th? 5th? 6th? 7th? 8th? 9th? 10th.??? NOPE..NOT EVEN CLOSE.. I dont expect an apology from you and dont even want one, BUT NEVER SIT THERE AND FALSELY CALL ME A LIAR (WHEN YOU ARE THE REAL LIAR) AGAIN.... GOT IT? Best wishes. JT
  6. 3 points
    listen, you can believe whatever you want. if you don't want to believe that "allusions to ID" will be edited out of peer reviewed science papers, then don't believe it. i can't remember the specific title but i DO have it at home. even if i DO present it, you will somehow try to poo poo it away. does it unnerve you to think you may have been lied to?
  7. 3 points
    An update on my job situation. Thank you all for the encouraging comments and for your prayers! I accepted a new job that was offered to me late last year (October 2018). I now work part-time and I have a higher income as a result. God is good! I have Tuesdays off and am able to spend all day with my 16th-month-old son. The work is much lighter and I am able to keep on top of things pretty well. I am hardly at the main office because my job has me out seeing patients all day. I get along with my co-workers very well and everyone is very nice. I wish you all the best in 2019 and Happy Easter!
  8. 3 points
    He's trying to argue a regurgitated form of the, "if God created the world why all the evidence that agrees with our worldview of evo and eons." It's a good example of begging-the-question fallacy because he doesn't have to show that overall the evidence points to his worldview, he just gets to state it. It's a classic atheist argument, "If God exists why did He make it look like we evolved." The correct answer is, "He didn't make it look like that because it doesn't look like that, you argue it looks like that." By comparison this atheist argument is equivalent to this argument; "If my wife didn't want me to beat her up violently why did she annoy me. Therefore she desires that I do this." This type of argument from the point of view of critical evaluation, is basically dependent upon a contradiction; that a turkey would vote for Christmas. But I think Wibble is a turkey for thinking a turkey would vote for Christmas or that God would vote for atheistic evolution or that a wife would vote for a beating. If Wibble stops to actually think about the things that come out of his mouth for more than one moment perhaps even he will see the holes in his arguments. Who knows, stranger things have happened. THE EVIDENCE: It can actually be shown and EVEN WITH REAL LIFE EXAMPLES!!!!! That you can get things created in modern times such as gorges and canyons, that look old, so we know that when such things are created, it is not a trick by God but rather that a catastrophe on a grand enough scale, can make it look like things have been happening slowly over many years, because of this true axiom which sometimes applies; "you either need a lot of force over a little time, or a little force over a lot of time." This axiom holds true in real life Tirian. Think about it this way, you can have sediment accumulate slowly over a great period of time to get X amount, or you can have a catastrophe with much greater force, lay it down quickly such as a flood powerful enough to rake and haul sediment. You could arguably have a canyon cut out slowly by a river over a lot of time or have a huge recess of water carve it all out a lot faster. You can fill a bath tub in two hours with a fast drip but if you apply more force over a shorter time by having both taps flow to the maximum you can have it fill up in ten minutes. But the water will be cold with the former. (i.e. if sediment was laid down slowly, flat gaps between sediments would not be flat, they would be eroded and have an irregular surface. In the Grand Canyon, the Coconino sandstone sits on top of soft shale. Soft shale over six million years, would have eroded easily, but it is flat, showing that there was little time between deposits.) Even evolutionary scientists that recently observed a gorge cut in weeks said it looked like it happened over a long time. I can quote that too, if Wibble wants me to. So the fact is we can show real life examples of things which look old but aren't, and we can prove therefore that there are reasons they look old, which have nothing to do with God tricking us, it's simply that where something large scale happens such as a canyon, present day erosion rates would take an awfully long time to create those features, which is why it looks old if there is an assumption such things are cut out over eons of time. But because of my axiom, if you apply a greater force, you only need a little time. PROVABLE EXAMPLES: - You can use a little force (little energy) by cycling 10 miles in one hour. Or you can use a great force (a jet) to travel the same distance in one minute. - You can use little force to cut out a section of rock over many years, or a flood can cut it out in days. - You can use a river to cut out a canyon over millions of years, or have a massive sediment flow create one in days like at Mt ST Helens. - You can deposit sediment at present day erosion rates over many millions of years, or you can have a huge amount of energy (world scale flood) deposit vast amounts in one year. CONCLUSION: The formula is simple; Effect P = Required force P = More force closer to P + less time to achieve P = to more time and less force closer to P. EXAMPLE: Bob quarried a box of dirt 25 metres X 42 metres X 60 metres = 63,000m3 in 100 hours. Dave quarried the same amount in 1,000 hours. Dave filled the box with 63m3 per hour (further to P) than Bob therefore Dave can achieve effect P at a slower rate. Problem: If we don't know which box belongs to who we don't necessarily know if it happened slow or fast, and if we assume processes are slow, this can give something the appearance of age because of that formula. With geologic features claimed to be of great age there is evidence which doesn't fit with it being laid down over great eons of time such as flat gaps which shouldn't be flat, soft tissues which would have rotted, and polystrate fossils. There are also examples in the Solnhoffen limestone, of creatures struggling and fighting each other, preserved in time meaning the rocks they are in must have been laid down immediately. So in that particular rock type they say took hundreds of thousands of years, there is a struggle between predator and prey, where they are instantly preserved in a moment of time, meaning many thousands of years, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years they say those rocks formed in, cannot have occurred. This evidence is much more of the "proof" type, than tenuous evidence for ages such as dating methods which are assumption-based. This preservation in the Solnhofen proves instant deposition; https://creation.com/two-fish-and-pterosaur-fossilized-together So what will God say to Wibble when He asks Wibble why he ignored all of this evidence by appealing to a greater quantity of tenuous evidence? EXAMPLE: "God you tricked me, look at all these feathers, there are hundreds, I was misled in believing they would weigh more than two bricks because there is way more of them than there are bricks so you tricked me into thinking the feathers weighed more." Oh deary me Wibble, if even mike can see you are deceiving yourself on that one, then what will the Lord see? For the evidence for catastrophe is nearly always direct and compelling.
  9. 3 points
    except when that word happens to be evolution. evolution, a land where conjecture mysteriously becomes chiseled in stone. lynch said it right, evolution is treated unlike any science by both the lay public AND academia.
  10. 3 points
    Mike, Dave ..... both of you stop the What I've seen is a huge blowup over a relatively minor misunderstanding. Basically, Mike saw the discussion getting a bit too personal. He named three individuals who, combined with himself, probably account for more than 90% of the recent posts by creationists. Maybe he shouldn't have named names .... but he did, so that's a done deal. I think that's something like my comment that if someone is looking to find something to be offended by, they'll find it .... even if it's not really there. Something I always try to keep in mind here at EFF .... we are ALL guests here. We should behave like it. "Can't we all just get along?" (Rodney King)
  11. 3 points
    I think this topic is veering a bit too close to, "let's debate Piasan", at times, folks. It's on it's way there. Remember if someone is a theistic evolutionist that isn't for debate. Suffice to say Piasan's position IS theistic evolutionist, so there's not much more to say other than to accept the fact. IndyDave no offence but it just seems when you are in a discussion with Piasan you tend to end up debating him more than the topic you are discussing. I have noticed this a few times now, it's as though he personally annoys you. That's how it comes across, I know theistic evolutionists are a frustration to creationists of course. Disclaimer: I'm not saying there is a full out assault going on, of attacking the person, to an extraordinarily bad level as such......... but I am compelled to highlight a personal attack even if it is against an evolutionist or atheist and thereby protect the vulnerable Gokus of the world, and various other species of guru. The creationist members are coming too close to debating the person. Perhaps that's because theistic evolution annoys/frustrates creationists and he seems to be the only one here that takes that position? Seems like an awful coincidence if that isn't the case. It's just something to consider. Bullying someone into creationism won't work folks, but it might help them to affirm their motto; "I'd be a creationist if it wasn't for the creationists." (Ho, ho, the Toads mischief extends to all, even those in his own group must take a spanking, ho, ho, don't you know.) (This is a light-hearted warning of course. No need for anyone to get their knickers in a twist............but you should know Bonedigger has given me FULL CONTROL as ultimate-power-guru at this forum, as chief Toad, and I will ban all of you for my own amusement if you continue. Yes, yes, you can take my word for it, before he left for Argentina to escape the law, he told me this himself!!! You should all tithe 10% of your income to me in his opinion, were his last words. )
  12. 3 points
    Sure, but how many other explanations are there that does not involve creation/creator. How many naturalistic origins myths are there to chose from? Except what KillurBluff already mentioned, which I think is one reason it became the reign paradigm so fast. You also have to remember that when the theory first appeared it made much more sense. Because at that time we did not know about genetics, the cell was believed to be simple and people believed that living creatures could arise from nonliving matter. You have to take into account the historical framework in which the theory arose.
  13. 3 points
    It's all about how humans can approach a possible truth. "Evolved by nature means" and "created by God" are both speculations cannot be proved. So both are deemed possible, one cannot exclude the other from the perspective of human science. Both sides are thus putting the same effort in approaching such a possible truth. Strictly speaking human science is all about NOW. it's futile about the past and it's futile about the future. Science is almost exclusively about how things repeat themselves predictably RIGHT NOW! ToE is about how humans try to approach a possible truth by "reconstructing the past". It's basically not a science. To put it another way, it's the only "science" using this approach. All other science it's about predicting how a phenomenon repeats itself to a future we can foretell. It is because we can foretell how it repeats into the future that we know that it's a truth. We don't actually need to fight evolution, as it refute itself more often than you realize. For an example, it's a joke to conclude that because I have the evidence that a cell replicate itself 1 million years ago such that evolution is not refutable. This statement is as hollow as "it is because 1+1=2 such that e=mc2. There's a huge gap between how a cell replicate itself and the formation of say, a human brain. There's no logical linking between "a cell replicate itself" and "a human brain is formed" (the gap is as huge as linking 1+1=2 to e=mc2). It's rather a truly deception projection or leverage to relate that "because a cell can replicate itself (as speculated), such that a human brain must be formed by evolution." It's not a conclusion which science can make per se. One cannot rule out the possibility that even though cell self-replication can be speculated, but brain can still be created instead of evolved. It is because this kind of deceptive leverage exists in evolution that we suspect not only that it's not a truth, but also that it's a masterpiece from an entity we call Satan.
  14. 3 points
    It is a slight flaw because it can be a limited choice fallacy, like if I said to you, "what's your favourite food, beans, ham or cheese?" If you MUST pick one to join a food forum then the descriptor doesn't necessarily define you accurately and you just have to go with the one you like most. I have always saw this as a bit of a flaw. Why not let us print out a specific descriptor like when we give our age or hobby? I would say your best descriptor at least of your world view, may be an IDist. Most scientific IDists argue as you do, most closely to your position. But if a person is a Christian, that should be the first and best descriptor because our worldview seeks to describe us intellectually, and we are more than a mind on stilts. Part of the problem is associations that the descriptors imply in our society generally. Luckily for me, I didn't have to choose between old-earth and young-earth for example. The best descriptor for me is just a creationist/IDist. Those words can be synonymous really but some would choose, "IDist" just to get away from the stigma of a 6,000 year old universe. In a way I do count myself IDist, the only real difference is I don't believe the rock record is eons of age like IDists tend to see it as, so they are somewhat similar to OECs in that regard. I would rather call myself an IDist because society would then not see me as unintelligent/ignorant as they do creationist, but that's pride messing with me. But that is understandable because it isn't nice to be thought of something which you aren't. In the end one has to bite the bullet, for the real reason I choose "creationist" is, I have to stoke myself to remember, because I believe God did create the world and everything in it, against the lie mankind has told itself; that it all created itself and unfolded. So for me, I have to swallow my pride and let people think what they think, after all at the end of the day what people think never does add up to much a lot of the time because if anything my own studies in reasoning and critical analysis, have shown me that "people", are very frequently incorrect in their thinking. But God doesn't make mistakes, He is all-knowing. His knowledge and intelligence/wisdom, is total. We see this from ID alone, as every organism to ever live was viable. The mind that could make millions of inventions and all of them be viable, is a mind we can't and never will fully grasp in it's level of utterly supreme ability. This is why it's ultimately a game of folly to choose any kind of history man says happened against what the bible tells us God said happened. Ultimately the bible makes sense of the world and answers the big questions to a satisfying capacity. No other religion or belief does this, there is always some hole. The bible explains why people are people, have morality, and are made in God's image. Evolution can never do that, it's predictions are all wrong, but they attribute what exists, to evolution. (pseudo-predictions) For example a true and more realistic prediction for evolution is that if there would have existed upright apes, they would be upright apes, rather than moral, super-sentient, musical, artistic, scientific, mathematical, sentient personas. If evolution were true, a more realistic expectation is a biped, grunting ape. So humanity fits better with being made in God's image. Only humans are capable of the great acts of compassion we see in the world, and only humans are capable of the greatest horrors. This proves two things. 1. Our capacity for good, showing a conscience from God in it's remnants. 2. Our capacity for evil, because of choosing from the tree, Satan's philosophy. This isn't explainable with evolution. With evolution we would just act like all the other animals act, which is to survive and only fight to protect ourselves and propagate. You simply don't see animals creating horrors, nor do you see them travel thousands of miles to have pity on the poor. (third world)
  15. 3 points
    IT SNOWED LAST NIGHT 8:00 am: I made a snowman. 8:10 - A feminist passed by and asked me why I didn't make a snow woman. 8:15 - So, I made a snow woman. 8:17 - My feminist neighbor complained about the snow woman's voluptuous chest saying it objectified snow women everywhere. 8:20 - The g*y couple living nearby threw a hissy fit and moaned it could have been two snow men instead. 8:22 - The transgender man..women...person asked why I didn't just make one snow person with detachable parts. 8:25 - The vegans at the end of the lane complained about the carrot nose, as veggies are food and not to decorate snow figures with. 8:28 - I was being called a racist because the snow couple is white. 8:31 - The Muslim gent across the road demanded the snow woman wear a burqa. 8:40 - The Police arrived saying someone had been offended 8:42 - The feminist neighbor complained again that the broomstick of the snow woman needed to be removed because it depicted women in a domestic role. 8:43 - The council equality officer arrived and threatened me with eviction. 8:45 - TV news crew from ABC showed up. I was asked if I know the difference between snowmen and snow-women? I replied "Snowballs" and am now called a sexist. 9:00 - I was on the News as a suspected terrorist, racist, homophobe sensibility offender, bent on stirring up trouble during difficult weather. 9:10 - I was asked if I have any accomplices. My children were taken by social services. 9:29 - Far left protesters offended by everything marched down the street demanding for me to be beheaded Moral: There is no moral to this story. It is what we have become.
  16. 2 points
    "But that's basically seems like a bit of a non-sequitur based on ignorantiam; "If you don't find evidence Bob and Harry are the murderers then it follows the person I say was the murderer is" Hahahah. That is about the size of it!! LOL
  17. 2 points
    "I'll spend more time on one good post to Dave on Hydroplates than I will defending biological evolution in a year" Sure you will... LOL. I'll get the popcorn and wait for the second Tuesday of Never to arrive.... Hahah Get real.. You wont ever try to defend the fairytale of Biological Evolution against the likes of me because you are a smart guy.. You KNOW how it will end.(Yes indeed you REALLY do) . You have been conditioned to defending Evolutionism against 15 year old indoctrinated know it nothings..This is the big leagues my friend.. I will just sit and wait while licking my chops.. Best wishes and happy Thanksgiving! JT
  18. 2 points
    Actually, my recollection is that every time I try to bring up biology you blow it off. You say that you don't like biology even though you have been required to teach it from time to time. I wouldn't say that we have really discussed it much at all. Not if you understand the meaning of "discuss" to be a two-way street. As I pointed out above, the person I have seen who seems to have the most recognition in this very specific area of the degradation of proteins (Collins), has declared that the idea that Schweitzer has put forth to explain the dino soft tissue, is a load of bunk. He would not agree with your statement about there being all the myriad of factors which can delay the degradation of proteins. He has in essence said that if you combine all those together the best you can hope for is a hundred thousand years. The only reason they are considered to be hundreds of millions of years old is because that is what is required by evolution.
  19. 2 points
    You seem to paint yourself into a corner. Because I would say that it is hard to calculate the probabilities of historical events. What do I mean? I mean that you don't have the ability to calculate the probabilities (for example) that human evolution actually took place. Much less so regarding details in the supposed human evolution story. So does that mean that human evolution is an argument from personal incredulity according to you? We can calculate the probabilities that a certain bridge construction will collapse at a given weight before it is built, but how do you calculate the probabilities that a certain historical event took place or not. How does your calculations for that look like? Or are you arguing that most science regarding the past is just arguments from personal incredulity? Do you misunderstand what the theist means by "no divine intervention"? That does not mean that the theist needs to assume that philosophical naturalism is true. In a theistic framework we truly don't have any need to ever assume that philosophical naturalism is true, not even when conducting science. For a theist God's providence could be realized either through secondary causes (providentia ordinaria) or primary causation (providentia extraordinaria), so in the case of your medicine test we would simply assume providentia ordinaria because of our background knowledge. But in some cases (like how the information in DNA came to be) we might assume providentia extraordinaria, since providentia ordinaria doesn't really give any reasonable explanation on how the information came to be. And we don't assume that due to lack of knowledge, but rather since we have very good knowledge on how information arise. Have you read Plantinga's paper I linked to earlier. It's the third post in the thread and the links are at the bottom. If you haven't read that I highly recommend that you do. It takes up many of the risks and problems that you are talking about.
  20. 2 points
    No I was stating that the terms-of-debate are not accepted. For example imagine if someone says, "I want to debate evolution with mike, now mike if we look at this fossil, it is 50myo and the bible doesn't indicate the earth is that old." In that type of debate, I would have to accept millions of years. In the same way the problem you pose of a difference in dating of 20 or so million years, is only a problem if I accept the rocks are that old to begin with. So all I am saying is that obviously from the creationist perspective, I don't accept dating methods. So when I say rocks are not clocks, that is a statement by me, that I don't accept the dating methods prove rocks are that old. It can be hard to explain the difference, some things are easy to see but not so easy to explain. "Quickly" doesn't mean recently and doesn't also mean at the same time. One can be very well been deposited 120 million years ago -- quickly -- and the other 95-98 million years ago. Yes but if you read the OP, I said; So in this thread, I am not trying to say, "it is impossible for eons of time", but rather I explained that I am making a case for youth. Allow me to explain; Imagine if I create an argument for intelligent design, and someone says, "but this doesn't disprove evolution". If I am not attempting to disprove evolution does it really matter? I think it is okay in life to say, "listen, you make your case for evolution and that is fine, I won't say anything about that, but over here in this thread, I am going to make my case for design and I don't have to talk about evolution." That is kind of what I am doing in this thread. I am not saying, "these facts are impossible with eons of time". They may or may not be, I don't have that knowledge. No but rather what I am actually saying is, "this evidence favours a flood scenario, it matches nicely, we would expect this evidence if the rocks are young". EXAMPLE: "I would expect a scar if I had an operation." Question: does that mean a scar cannot come from anything else? No, but it is still okay to say, "this is the evidence I would expect". So I believe the OP explains that this sort of evidence is better explained with a flood scenario. Sure, there may be some way by which it can be explained by eons, but I believe that would depend on ad-hoc excuses, pseudo-predictions and other excusatory dodge-waffle, ho, ho, don't you know. Creation scientists are, "real" scientist. To be a "real" scientist you need a qualification in the relevant field. To then say a creationist with that qualification is not a real scientist is the No True Scotsman fallacy. If you read chapter 1-6 of my book, you will see in the chapter dealing with circular reasoning and false predictions, your "real scientists" very much start with the conclusion of evolution, then ABUSE hindsight by pretending evolution would predict what we would see in the record of death and the record of life. Empirical observations by your "real scientists" leads to a TENUOUS case because they only really have the dodgy dating methods to go by, which cannot be discussed in this topic! Ho,ho!
  21. 2 points
    That's exactly what he DID teach! You don't know what you're talking about, and he's YOUR church leader! **Augustine argues that “the world was made, not in time, but simultaneously with time.”  ** I have no problem with that idea because Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the Earth IN THE BEGINNING (OF TIME). There was no time before God created the heavens and the Earth. But then subsequently God fashioned the heavens and the Earth during the six days. If you or the person you quoted had simply read THE REMAINDER OF THAT SAME SENTENCE, you would not have thought that Augustine believed there was no 6 day creation just as Genesis 1 describes. **But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say! He has difficulty describing what sort of days they were because the first 3 days had no sun. But he certainly thought of the days to be 24 hour days after the fourth day and he was not sure about the first 3 days. But regardless, he did NOT see everything being created instantly, or at least not FASHIONED instantly. (If I recall correctly there are two different Hebrew words for created and made and so Augustine would say that everything was CREATED instantly at the same moment that time was created, and after that God MADE things or fashioned them from what had already been created.) And of course you don't agree with that idea (everything being instantly created) anyway! You just want to pick and choose what tiny little bits of what Augustine believed that you also want to believe and then pretend that you are somehow being orthodox with your religious leaders, when you are NOT! Here is the very next sentence which begins the following chapter. **We see, indeed, that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting, and no morning but by the rising, of the sun; but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness, and called the light Day, and the darkness Night; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was, and yet must unhesitatingly believe it. ** Then in chapter 9 he attempts to figure out on which day the angels would have been made because they are not listed and yet the Bible clearly teaches that they were created beings. ** Since, therefore, He began with the heavens and the earth — and the earth itself, as Scripture adds, was at first invisible and formless, light not being as yet made, and darkness covering the face of the deep (that is to say, covering an undefined chaos of earth and sea, for where light is not, darkness must needs be) — and then when all things, which are recorded to have been completed in six days, were created and arranged, how should the angels be omitted, as if they were not among the works of God, from which on the seventh day He rested? ** I'm quite sure you have also been misinformed in the thought that Augustine opposed a literal understanding of the days of creation and other events in Genesis. It appears that he went back and forth between whether to regard it as figurative or literal and part of his comments were in opposition to those who were hyper literal (saying crazy things like when Jesus said he was the door, that he was a literal door!) But according to the following author, who studied him closely, toward the end of his life he was more literal than allegorical. https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/books/augustines-commentaries-on-genesis-one-and-modern-theology/ This author speaks about a problem Augustine had regarding day five when Augustine thought it was saying that the birds and fish were conceiving and bearing forth offspring during the same day and so therefore it must NOT be a standard 24 hour day, but he had a bad translation and the text does not actually say that. However it does indicate that he had a mind-set where he thought of a literal 24 hour day, otherwise he would not have seen that sort of potential dilemma. ** When discussing the creation of the flying and swimming creatures of the fifth day, Augustine could not imagine that a fish or bird could conceive, carry in the womb, and give birth before the evening of the fifth day arrived (Augustine 2002c, 51). The problem is that the text does not say that they did conceive, carry, and give birth before the end of the day. It merely mentions that God created the fish and birds on this day and that He had “programmed” them to perform these reproductive activities during their lifetimes. Yet, the Old Latin text is a bit ambiguous and seems to suggest that they performed these duties prior to the end of the fifth day. **
  22. 2 points
    If you look back to the OP, Blitz pretty much excluded all of the evidence then. That's why I declined to participate in that aspect of this charade.
  23. 2 points
    And amen to all your comments, but I think Tirian isn't "new", he has been a member for some time my lad. He is our Swede from Sweden, that boasts Swede rather than sour! He represents Frieda Hansdotter for us! And Ingemar Stenmark. He could even be Stenmark wearing a face mask!
  24. 2 points
    was this the same person that was fired for going public with this? if so, i have the web page saved to my hard drive. the funny thing is, now we are seeing all kinds of alleged "evidence" of how this stuff could be preserved for a very, very, long time, but yet she was fired. damage control anyone? this reminds me of what was found with miller-urey. those that have been around for awhile knows what i mean. we managed to come up with 3 or four sources, each positing conflicting results. hey, we can pick and choose what we want to believe eh? yay rah evolution ! what a laugh. and why? oh man, we can't give those creationists any ammo, that's why.
  25. 2 points
    (my comments below) http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html From 2007 through 2011 the Paleochronology group had 11 dinosaur bone samples carbon dated by the Center for Applied Isotope Studies at the University of Georgia, and for good reason. Senior research scientist Alexander Cherkinsky specializes in the preparation of samples for Carbon-14 testing. He directed the pretreatment and processing of the dinosaur bone samples with the Accelerator Mass Spectrometer, though he did not know the bones were from dinosaurs, and he signed the reports. Carbon dating at this facility is certainly the very best. But in 2014, someone told the director of the facility, Jeff Speakman, that the Paleochronology group was showing the Carbon-14 reports on a website and YouTube and drawing the obvious conclusions. So when he received another bone sample from the Paleochronology group, he returned it to sender and sent an email saying: "I have recently become aware of the work that you and your team have been conducting with respect to radiocarbon dating of bone. The scientists at CAIS and I are dismayed by the claims that you and your team have made with respect to the age of the Earth and the validity of biological evolution. Consequently, we are no longer able to provide radiocarbon services in support of your anti-scientific agenda. I have instructed the Radiocarbon Laboratory to return your recent samples to you and to not accept any future samples for analysis." Notice that he did not say the radiocarbon reports of the dinosaur bone samples were inaccurate. No, his objection was that the Paleochronology group was using the reports as evidence that dinosaurs lived thousands, not millions, of years ago. So I asked him 3 times over 3 weeks what is the right conclusion to draw from the test results they provided us; then I asked his entire scientific staff. None of them had an answer. This is an attitude we have encountered among members of academia: there is an established truth, and all evidence contrary to it is rejected. Anyone who challenges the established truth is made an enemy. The threat hangs over everyone. A manager of a commercial laboratory that does Carbon-14 dating, Beta Analytic Inc., reviewed a poster display of the dinosaur data and discussed it with a member of the Paleochronology group. Her interest led us to propose that her company perform a Carbon-14 test on a T-rex bone we acquired. She wrote back: Bernadett Limgenco Operations Manager - Australia and Southeast Asia Beta Analytic Inc. 4985 SW 74 Court Miami, Florida 33155 USA Thanks for considering our service in this project. We wish you well in your research but must choose to opt-out of the analysis. Since you have identified it as T-rex, and these are known to be extinct for 50 million years, it is beyond the limit of our dating. If a "recent" result was derived it would be universally challenged with possible risks of poor result claims for our laboratory. This is a project much better suited for collaboration with a university laboratory. Regards, Bernadett This shows the dilemma that the radiocarbon dating labs have. If they were to date a dinosaur bone and get ANY c14 it would prove that their lab has sloppy cleaning procedures and it would ruin their ability to do work for those who would be dating recent material such as from Egyptian pyramids etc. Everyone would say, well when you dated those dinosaur bones you could not get rid of all of the contamination so the dates you give us will be totally unreliable. So they had no choice but to reject any dinosaur bones at all in the future. It sort of sounds like the fix is in. These people are not true scientists! They are the devoted high priests of the RELIGION of naturalism! All the outcomes of their testing are predetermined ahead of time and adjusted however is necessary in order for evolution to still be true.
×

Important Information

Our Terms